Pistols vs Truppen

[MikeyD]

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but I heard somewhere (a few years ago) that Army today generally deemphasises marksmanship, especially when compared to Marine training. M4 carbines with store-bought laser pointers on them. Infantry in WWII, on the other hand were handling proper big-bullet long range rifles. You were expected to be able to hit targets back then at ranges that they don't even train you for now. Who knows what qualifying expectations were with the old .45 pistol in WWII? Probably they were no higher than nowadays. After all, they did introduce the M1 carbine as a .45 pistol replacement so the troops would be more likely to actually hit what they were aiming at.

[YankeeDog]

I have enjoyed this topic very much, but it has taken me from my goal Im not sure where to find help at ,so I will just throw this out there . When I play and use my mouse to scroll around the battle I sometimes end up at my desk icons , why is this can it be fixed ?Any help is very much appreciated.

Not sure what's causing your problem, Ace, as I have never experienced anything like that, but you might want to re-post this in the Tech Support forum.

[slysniper]

Someone recently posted here that army training instructors often had difficulty getting hunters to 'unlearn' habits got from hunting. Warfighting is a different skillset. I think he mentioned the hunter's tendency to take too long to get off the shot. I can imagine when you're deer hunting there's not much call for supressive fire either.

There might be some truth in that statement, But I still would prefer a bunch of backwood boys that have hunted most their lives than any stuck up trained marksman.

Oh, just to add to that point, in the sniper unit I was in. Out of twenty four men. I can think of only two that were not around guns until they entered the Service. Also our two best snipers ( which were world class Marksman), both grew up on farms and had skills that all the training we received never could match. So for Snipers I will say that statement is not true. For quick close combat shooting, then I will say your statement has some truth. For that they brought in some non-military trainers that were quick draw shooters, that is a whole different skill set. Speed and firepower becomes much more important, hunting skills generally do not lend to that. But I recall all that jackrabbit shooting with a 22 for fun sure did not hurt.

[acehammer]

I thought the carbine was introduced to replace the garand because cooks ,truck drivers, and office pogue bait did not need a heavy long range rifle like the infantry.

[acehammer]

Thanks for the info YankeeDog I will do just that.

[slysniper]

Shotguns were extremely rare among U.S. Forces in the ETO. The Marines in the Pacific used a few, but even there they were not at all common. Overall, unless a Tank crew found one in a French farmhouse or somehow managed to smuggle one purchased with personal funds across the Atlantic, they wouldn't have one.

As I mentioned above, other "acquired" weapons not part of the U.S. Army's official allotment for the crew are another matter. From what I've read, tank crews frequently scrounged or traded for carbines or rifles. The larger weapons that couldn't be easily managed in and out of the tank they simply strapped the back of the turret or the hull side.

I agree with this, but also would add that I feel the main reason shotguns were not found was for more common sence reasons. The most logical one to me would be, where am I going to get Ammo to keep my weapon stocked. Its like trying to use a enemy weapon without a supply line. When supply trucks come up, they sure are not packed with them 12 gage shells I will be wanting??? So no weapon is of value unless your supply chain is providing you ammo.

Now as to what you might find on real units that had been in combat, the assigned equipment that the army said you should have was almost the last thing you would find.

This one old true soilder I knew from that era was a co-worker that had been a scout in a unit in Pattons Third Army.

I recall him telling me his 4 man unit carried Two MG and two Thompsons,

they also had a Enemy MG 42 that they would switch out for one of the 30"s. when they had gathered enough ammo at times

Now they also had a carbine and bar for when they were on certain missions on foot. But most of their scouting was done in the Jeep except for night missions into enemy lines.

[mjkerner]

Shotguns were extremely rare among U.S. Forces in the ETO. The Marines in the Pacific used a few, but even there they were not at all common.

IIRC, weren't shotguns outlawed by the Geneva Convention, and since Japan was not a signatory, some were used in the Pacific against them, but like you say, not very common even then.

[YankeeDog]

I thought the carbine was introduced to replace the garand because cooks, truck drivers, and office pogue bait did not need a heavy long range rifle like the infantry.

Partially. But it was also standard equipment for many G.I.s whose primary job was to be on the front line. Many U.S. Army Rangers, who had more personal choice in what firearm they carried than the typical G.I., carried it by choice. It was also the standard firearm for a substantial proportion of Airborne infantry. And it was also standard issue for members of command teams, heavy weapons teams, 60mm mortar teams and MG teams, whose primary job was not shooting their personal firearm, but who certainly were close enough to the point of contact that they might occasionally find themselves in a situation where they needed to use their personal firearms (as CMBN correctly models).

One of the things that came out of WWII experiences, which the U.S. Military was actually slow to fully accept and adjust to, is that it's very difficult to shoot effectively at a target using simple iron sights at ranges over about 300m. That is, the M1 Garand may well be accurate to ranges over 500m, but unless you put a scope on it, the typical soldier can't see well enough through simple iron sights to use it effectively at long ranges like this. This is one of the reasons of why modern militaries have generally moved to a shorter-ranged standard issue small arm, like the M4 carbine which is standard issue for the U.S. Army today.

I think you can definitely make the argument that, all things considered, the M1 Carbine is a better general-purpose infantry weapon for the engagement distances you're likely to see in dense terrain like Norman bocage than the M1 Garand.

Turning back to WWI, one thing that CM does not model is the existence of the M2 carbine, which was full auto... it's hard to say definitively because it was usually an ad hoc, field conversion thing (the conversion could actually be done by hand with nothing more than some careful work with a metal file). But from what I've read, M1 carbines converted to full auto fire were actually pretty common amongst infantry units in Normandy.

[slysniper]

Turning back to WWI, one thing that CM does not model is the existence of the M2 carbine, which was full auto... it's hard to say definitively because it was usually an ad hoc, field conversion thing (the conversion could actually be done by hand with nothing more than some careful work with a metal file). But from what I've read, M1 carbines converted to full auto fire were actually pretty common amongst infantry units in Normandy.

Now, there is something I really did not know, I need to check into this. That iis a interesting fact.

[Sergei]

I wonder where you've read that from? Wikipedia seems to contradict, saying the conversion kits became available only much later.

Initially, the M1 Carbine was intended to have a select-fire capability, but in order to speed development of the final design, a decision was made to omit this feature. On 26 October 1944, in response to increased use of automatic fire weapons on the battlefield, the select-fire M2 carbine was adopted, along with a new 30-round magazine. The M2 had a fully automatic rate-of-fire of about 850-900 rounds-per-minute. Although actual M2 production began late in the war (April 1945), US Ordnance issued conversion part kits to allow field conversion of semi-auto M1 carbines to the selective-fire M2 configuration. These converted M1/M2 select-fire carbines saw limited combat service in Europe, primarily during the final Allied advance into Germany. In the Pacific, both converted and original M2 carbines saw limited use in the last days of the fighting in the Philippines.

[YankeeDog]

Now, there is something I really did not know, I need to check into this. That iis a interesting fact.

To be clear, the true M2 carbine did not star to come out of factories until 1945. But the mechanism of the weapon was actually originally designed for selective fire (i.e., semi-auto or full-auto), and some of the reading I have done suggest that field conversions to full-auto started to happen long before actual M2 versions reached troops.

Edit: Ninja'd by Sergei... yes; there are three stages of adoption of full-auto .30 carbines in the U.S. Army. First, field conversions done ad hoc. Then the T17 and T18 kits, and finally actual M2 carbines coming out of factories. As you note, this last group (factory-built M2s) didn't start production until too late to see action in the ETO. The middle group (conversion kits) saw limited use in the ETO, but not in 1944. The first group is hard to quantify. I have read accounts of field armorers making the conversion in Italy and the Pacific in 1943, and definitely in Normandy in 1944. How common it was is very hard to say.

Best article on the subject was actually a reprint of an American Rifleman article from 1944 that I found a few years back. Unfortunately, I've since lost my copy of it. I'd really like to find another one...

[acehammer]

I could see crew served weapons personal wanting carbines, very understandable .I think if I was a regular ground pounder I would want an M-1 garand, it would have alot to do with being able to shoot at them when they started shooting at me.The bocage is not the M-1,s finest terrian ,however when things started to open up a bit it would be very different. It seems I remember reading the garand was more reliable in the cold than many other weapons.

[JonS]

IIRC, weren't shotguns outlawed by the Geneva Convention

No.

Look, the Geneva Conventions really aren't that complicated. They've been produced specifically with soldiers in mind, they aren't secret, and are very very easy to access on the web. It'd be great if people stopped just pulling sh!t out of their arses about the Conventions, and started to bother looking it up for themselves.

for example, this took about 3 minutes to find:

www.icrc.org/eng/war-and-law/weapons/overview-weapons.htm

Shotguns are not outlawed however expanding or flattening bullets are, per the Hague Declaration, 1899.

Here's the full text of the relevant section:

http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/FULL/170?OpenDocument

Note the bit about dumdums.

Here's the list of signatories:

http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/WebSign?ReadForm&id=170&ps=P

[costard]

Wouldn't shotguns would be outlawed because of the calibre of the round? Anything over 8mm isn't allowed to be used vs people, or sumfink?

Edit: nope. Snopes, et al.

[Macisle]

I think the commando crew issue affects both sides equally. Players favoring the Axis side probably perceive it as worse on (i.e. advantage to) the Allied side, because they have bolt-action rifles, rather than semi-autos like the Amis.

I remember running a (Hotseat) demo charge test a few months ago where I had a tiger with its rear facing a mound with a bocage break along its top. The tiger had a short front cover arc, so I could let a squad of engineers casually position themselves behind it while on top of the mound, to test throwing their charges. Well... they threw a couple and knocked out the tank. The crew then bailed and proceeded to kill half the engineers, causing the others to flee in panic--without taking casualties. So, that is a full squad of rested engineers facing the tank from an elevated position at point-blank range, having a crew jump out, turn 180 degrees, and whack half of them in seconds--without losing a man!

So, big +1 on reducing pistol effectiveness and bailed crew performance to realistic levels.

Macisle

[acehammer]

In The Martin Russ book THE LAST PARALLEL he does some basic comparaisons, I think he was a BAR man, if I remember right he wasn,t very fond of the carbine at all. I dont think he liked the M-1 garrand much either. This was 1952-53 during the korean war.This was a different enviorement than the bocage of Normandy ,but it is some interesting reading of infantry combat of that time.

[slysniper]

I think the commando crew issue affects both sides equally. Players favoring the Axis side probably perceive it as worse on (i.e. advantage to) the Allied side, because they have bolt-action rifles, rather than semi-autos like the Amis.

I remember running a (Hotseat) demo charge test a few months ago where I had a tiger with its rear facing a mound with a bocage break along its top. The tiger had a short front cover arc, so I could let a squad of engineers casually position themselves behind it while on top of the mound, to test throwing their charges. Well... they threw a couple and knocked out the tank. The crew then bailed and proceeded to kill half the engineers, causing the others to flee in panic--without taking casualties. So, that is a full squad of rested engineers facing the tank from an elevated position at point-blank range, having a crew jump out, turn 180 degrees, and whack half of them in seconds--without losing a man!

So, big +1 on reducing pistol effectiveness and bailed crew performance to realistic levels.

Macisle

Lets see, is this supermen, or BF has great research about the amazing pistol that we do not understand, the game is perfect.

Actually I have been a little disappointed this time that no more updates have come out on the coding, now we are to the module add on and I am starting to wonder if we will see any tweaks to the issues that have been pointed out for the last 9 months. I still have hope, but that Beta video really makes me question it. And this is not major programming that I am talking about. accuracy and spotting should be simple adjustments as to how well a unit does.

[Macisle]

I'm working on a test map for urban combat (much more detailed terrain to benefit infantry). That should also allow me get a better idea of bailed crew performance.

[slysniper]

Test results soon. It seems like some adjustment to the game model is needed the question is how much...

Working on tests

YankeeDog has it already under control, but at this point it will not help the next release unless they have already fixed the issue. If not he would need to run the test again likely anyway. If they do, then we could see how much it is adjusted.

Just like I would like to see tank spotting adjusted. Mortars adjusted.

Sniper fire and concealment and so on and so on.

I really love the game but it would be nice to get some adjustments.

[GhostRider3/3]

YankeeDog has it already under control, but at this point it will not help the next release unless they have already fixed the issue. If not he would need to run the test again likely anyway. If they do, then we could see how much it is adjusted.

Just like I would like to see tank spotting adjusted. Mortars adjusted.

Sniper fire and concealment and so on and so on.

I really love the game but it would be nice to get some adjustments.

My question then... why cant they release another patch.. or would it matter with CMBCW... hopefully they have fixed some of this... tank spotting Infantry is sometimes almost laughable.

[sburke]

In a very satisfying moment I just slipped a bazooka team along a hedgerow flanking an StuG III, put a single round into and then proceeded to gun down most of the crew as they exited (playing RTM campaign). First chance I have had to play this game in over a month and it hasn't lost anything over time.

Beautiful maps, great campaign/scenario design and an awesome game. 7 days left for a chance to see the CW module before I hit the road again......

[Doug Williams]

One of the things that came out of WWII experiences, which the U.S. Military was actually slow to fully accept and adjust to, is that it's very difficult to shoot effectively at a target using simple iron sights at ranges over about 300m. That is, the M1 Garand may well be accurate to ranges over 500m, but unless you put a scope on it, the typical soldier can't see well enough through simple iron sights to use it effectively at long ranges like this. This is one of the reasons of why modern militaries have generally moved to a shorter-ranged standard issue small arm, like the M4 carbine which is standard issue for the U.S. Army today.

Absolutely true. Having owned a garand, and shot it from a bench rest with sandbags at distances up to 200 meters, I would say the average soldier was just wasting his ammo shooting at man sized targets with iron sights past 300 meters.

When I went through army basic training in 1983, we shot M16s from the prone position at pop up man sized targets at distances up to 200 meters. The 200 meter targets were rather difficult to hit (you only had about three seconds before the target went back down)....and that's without the pressure of the target shooting back at us.

[slysniper]

In a very satisfying moment I just slipped a bazooka team along a hedgerow flanking an StuG III, put a single round into and then proceeded to gun down most of the crew as they exited (playing RTM campaign). First chance I have had to play this game in over a month and it hasn't lost anything over time.

Beautiful maps, great campaign/scenario design and an awesome game. 7 days left for a chance to see the CW module before I hit the road again......

I agree, I love the game, actually do not find it all that hard to kill tanks or crews with infantry, but still find enough events when playing that when we see some hard data as to how the game is playing will likely show how unrealistic it is in some actions. This being one of them

[c3k]

Upstream, someone mentioned "combat shooting". It seems to me that he used that term in the training sense. In this setting, to me, "combat shooting" means someone, and all their friends, wants to kill you. They have bigger, better, and probably more, guns. Shots may or may not be cracking around my head and maybe thudding into my buddies. Dirt flying, adrenaline pumping, shaking hands, ragged breathing, tunnel vision, running, diving, rolling, hiding, ducking, and a friggin' .45. Hitting at 5 meters would be damn good shooting.

(There are plenty of youtube police shootouts. No link for this one, but it stands out. 2 officers approached a Suburban with 5 gang-bangers. Officer 1 approached the drivers door along the side - normal ops. Officer 2 stayed by the "C" pillar, observing. Suddenly the 4 window passengers pulled weapons - semi auto for sure - and opened up. Officer 1 ducked, scrambled back, and emptied his 15+ round magazine at the Suburban. Ditto, officer 2.

6 or 7 participants (4 or 5 pax in vehicle). 6 weapons. The range was 1 to 15 meters. Over 100 rounds were fired.

No one got hit.)

A better training exercise would have moving, pop up targets at various ranges. Addtionally, off to the side, would be a dozen (or fewer, tweak as needed) paintball shooters. If the trainee gets tagged by a paintball, he's out. Intense PT to follow. Very intense. Now, how's that "combat shooting" marksmanship going to look? I'll bet the ranges drop dramatically.

My .02.

(Um, yes, I know that you'd lose some paintball shooters over time. It's a matter of attrition. )

Ken

[acehammer]

Upstream, someone mentioned "combat shooting". It seems to me that he used that term in the training sense. In this setting, to me, "combat shooting" means someone, and all their friends, wants to kill you. They have bigger, better, and probably more, guns. Shots may or may not be cracking around my head and maybe thudding into my buddies. Dirt flying, adrenaline pumping, shaking hands, ragged breathing, tunnel vision, running, diving, rolling, hiding, ducking, and a friggin' .45. Hitting at 5 meters would be damn good shooting.

(There are plenty of youtube police shootouts. No link for this one, but it stands out. 2 officers approached a Suburban with 5 gang-bangers. Officer 1 approached the drivers door along the side - normal ops. Officer 2 stayed by the "C" pillar, observing. Suddenly the 4 window passengers pulled weapons - semi auto for sure - and opened up. Officer 1 ducked, scrambled back, and emptied his 15+ round magazine at the Suburban. Ditto, officer 2.

6 or 7 participants (4 or 5 pax in vehicle). 6 weapons. The range was 1 to 15 meters. Over 100 rounds were fired.

No one got hit.)

A better training exercise would have moving, pop up targets at various ranges. Addtionally, off to the side, would be a dozen (or fewer, tweak as needed) paintball shooters. If the trainee gets tagged by a paintball, he's out. Intense PT to follow. Very intense. Now, how's that "combat shooting" marksmanship going to look? I'll bet the ranges drop dramatically.

My .02.

(Um, yes, I know that you'd lose some paintball shooters over time. It's a matter of attrition. )

Ken

I know we talked about it some already with supply maybe being the main issue as to why they were not present .A 10 OR 12 gauge sawed off pump or double,could have been a very nasty thing for infantry close assulting a buttoned up tank , open up a hatch to throw in your satchel chrage or grenade and ba boom its over, even vision slits may have been shooting portals no aiming you can here where their at stick the barrel out and pull the trigger, just a thought.